Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Threatens Legal Action Over Upcoming Steve Jobs Figurine

Macman45 said:
I'm no lawyer. But I can't see how Apple can claim to "Own" the likeness of it's sadly deceased founder.
Click to expand...
Steve's distinctive keynotes is in a sense part of the Apple brand. Even so, while I realise it's unlikely I'd have a figurine made of me, I'd rest easier knowing that a great big company was helping to put a stop to it, as I doubt it's in the family's wishes, or that they'd get a penny from the company making those creepy things.

While they've clearly done work to make it realistic, making an unauthorised figurine of a dead person is pretty disgusting, especially when there are living relatives who doubtless weren't consulted, wouldn't get any money for the likeness, and probably don't want it made in the first place. It's exploitative, plain and simple.
 
takeshi74 said:
Not as ridiculous as spelling the word "rediculous". Any company that doesn't aggressively attempt to protect its IP risks losing it.
Click to expand...

When did a company's employees become their Intellectual Property? This is America! Remember the last time people were considered property in this country? It didn't work out so well...
 
This is a Chinese company. US laws do not apply in China. So, they can present all kinds of US laws but if there is no comparable Chinese law, then tough luck. So, anybody know if there is a similar Chinese law?
 
I would agree that it should be the Family of Steve Jobs that deserves this cause. Plus being that it's pretty nasty to make dolls of anybody's likeness without consulting them or agreements made. And if they agree, they deserve much of the proceeds...not just some random company trying to profit off him.

Oddly enough, with an underhanded exception or two, to use an internal celebrity example, you don't see a plethora of unlicenced Jackie Chan dolls, so somebody is enforcing something.
 
Last edited:
vitzr said:
1) I did not say "I get voted down" in my post I clearly stated "anyone" because that's how it is. Try reading the post you are responding to.
Click to expand...

I'm still not clear on your point, then.

You said that "Anyone who thinks for themselves and dares to express anything other than total agreement with Apple becomes a target."

And as I pointed out, that's just not true.

Or do I not count as anyone? Is that what I'm missing? That not everyone is anyone?
 
They should make it since Jobs green lighted the whole think different campaign using the likenesses of deceased people who probably would have never given their approval of the ads if alive. His likeness is more important to protect than Pablo Picasso or Amelia Aerhardt?
 
The producers of the doll should offer to give Apple a 30% cut of the profits (a la App Store style) and see if that makes the legal threats suddenly disappear.
 
Small White Car said:
I'm still not clear on your point, then.

You said that "Anyone who thinks for themselves and dares to express anything other than total agreement with Apple becomes a target."

And as I pointed out, that's just not true.

Or do I not count as anyone? Is that what I'm missing? That not everyone is anyone?
Click to expand...

It's apparent that I've failed to be clear in my post. Perhaps a better way of stating my point would be to say:

"Many (not everyone) who think for themselves and dare to express anything other than total agreement with Apple becomes a target."

The link that you've included with your positive comment on Android, did indeed _not_ get voted down. Yet in numerous cases a similar positive opinion about Android or WindowsPhone 7 does draw negative votes.

In fact quite often I wonder why such seemingly neutral or well thought out posts on any Apple product draw negative votes.

I'm largely platform neutral with my one admitted bias being the fact that I'm Pro-Apple regarding OS X and their computers. I've used them continuously at work & home since 1991. Therefore I'm highly attached.

Yet that said, having used high end Windows machines concurrently, I'm not anti Microsoft. Two different platforms, each with their own set of strengths.

Therefore the main (minor) annoyance I experience, is those who participate in a forum and behave so poorly.

Cheers... :)
 
Wait a sec. What if Pixar wanted to sell a Steve Jobs figurine? Wouldn't they, as another company closely affiliated with Steve Jobs, also have the right to his likeness? Why does Apple, and not Pixar, have the rights to Steve Jobs' image? It's really a little absurd. Did Steve have a contract with Apple where they could use his image ad infinitum following his death?

I think the FAMILY (wife and kids only) are the ones who should have the rights to his likeness. If Tim Cook and the attorneys at Apple want to help Laureen battle the evil Chinese companies, then fine. But, what if Reed Jobs wanted to make a little money selling the likeness of his father? It would be pretty disgusting, but shouldn't he, as Steve's only son, have more of a claim than Apple, Inc.? Actually, if the family were smart, they would SELL their rights to Steve's likeness to Apple. Let Apple own it, but at a price. After all, isn't that what Steve would have done?
 
JarScott said:
So, Apple are now claiming to own Steve Jobs' face?

Okay, sure thing, Apple.
Click to expand...

this may sound strange for us normal folk, but he may actually have had the rights spelled out in his will. Since the rights of his likeness are his in life, and the laws seem to say that someone still holds the rights for 70 years after his death then it seems somewhat logical that well known people may actually have the ownership of their likeness rights spelled out in their legal will.
 
Next, Apple will patent the fruit apple and whoever wants to sell apples, let alone mcIntosh red, will have to pay royalties to Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back